Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751417AbdGRHYm (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:24:42 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:35730 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338AbdGRHYl (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:24:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:24:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andi Kleen cc: "Li, Aubrey" , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Christoph Lameter , Aubrey Li , len.brown@intel.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods In-Reply-To: <20170718065926.GP3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20170713182820.sn3fjitnd3mca27p@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <31170ac6-9db1-f0b8-4841-f1661c8ed6e1@linux.intel.com> <20170714153818.pjauqxebxyhs6ljp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170714155356.GH3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170714160648.tg2u6eo2id6gmnjz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170714162619.GJ3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170717192309.ubn5muvc3u7htuaw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <34371ef8-b8bc-d2bf-93de-3fccd6beb032@linux.intel.com> <20170718044521.GO3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20170718065926.GP3441@tassilo.jf.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1251 Lines: 35 On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:43:53AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > We need a tradeoff here IMHO. I'll check Daniel's work to understand how/if > > > > it's better than menu governor. > > > > > > I still would like to see how the fast path without the C1 heuristic works. > > > > > > Fast pathing is a different concept from a better predictor. IMHO we need > > > both, but the first is likely lower hanging fruit. > > > > Hacking something on the side is always the lower hanging fruit as it > > avoids solving the hard problems. As Peter said already, that's not going > > to happen unless there is a real technical reason why the general path > > cannot be fixed. So far there is no proof for that. > > You didn't look at Aubrey's data? I did, but that data is no proof that it is unfixable. It's just data describing the current situation, not more not less. > There are some unavoidable slow operations in the current path -- e.g. That's the whole point: current path, IOW current implementation. This implementation is not set in stone and we rather fix it than just creating a side channel and leave everything else as is. Thanks, tglx